about conflict
I remember approaching my advisor in graduate school to say that I wanted to come up with a theory of political and social change that was conflict-free. She laughed so derisively, saying that it was impossible because conflict was and always had been with us. It really dashed my confidence. Yet I continue to believe that there is a way for humans to interact that is less painful.
Maybe conflict is inevitable, simply because people have different experiences, needs, opinions, interests. And those come into conflict at times. I think you mean something when you mean something else. We both want that piece of land. Like three year olds who both want that special toy at the same time and don't know how to share or take turns. I don't mean to minimize it by saying that but I do think that like children, humanity is still growing up and learning how to share and take turns. We're not there yet. The question for me is, will we ever be? I hope so!
One truism I challenge is that people battle over scarce resources. To the contrary, those with the least are often the most generous. I've seen parents go hungry so that their children can eat, and groups of people share a meager meal. Sure there are some hoarders, but they are exceptions at the soup kitchen or food pantry. What troubles me more is the people who already have so much who just want more, more, more. The pursuit of material goods and of quantity can blind these people to the fact that they live in a world with others who also have needs. How much is enough? It's a soul-sickness that puts them in conflict with others. Healing that sickness could heal the conflict.
Another kind of conflict is when we come from such different places that it's hard to understand each other. To do so requires patience and communication and a willingness to listen to another's point of view and to accept that their views and interests and needs are equally valid, and the stamina to keep explaining my own perspective in ways that the other might understand. I've spent lots of time talking to men about my perspective as a woman, with varying degrees of success. One thing I need is the comfort of other women, respite from the struggle. That's something that most people need, I think - a place where there is no conflict or struggle - a place to rest and get ready to go back into the fray. Without that rest, violence may be more likely.
So I admit that conflict is a necessary fact of the human condition. It's useful, however, only if it can be resolved amicably. And that resolution can be into a new phase of being or consciousness, to a compromise, to some win/win agreement, or agreeing to disagree or to live and let live. I have found that the best "teachers" in my life are the difficulties I've faced, the things that challenge my self-perception and capabilities, the pain that's forced me to change something internal and/or external. Because I really want contentment and serenity, I am willing to push through the process toward amicable internal resolution.
The books Getting to Yes and Getting Past No do offer methods for getting a win-win resolution to business and personal conflicts. Active listening is my favorite tool - really listening to what the other person wants and needs. I'm reminded that negotiations are between people, not between companies or nations per se. And what I read about the best negotiators - the ones who actually make progress in resolving conflicts like in Northern Ireland (what a beacon of hope that is!) - is that they listen, help each side to listen to each other, and have no preset agenda other than to help the two sides come to some amicable and mutually acceptable and beneficial agreement. So it's not about eliminating conflict, it's about accepting it and then working with it from there.
I recently read a story about a woman making the best out of a nasty conflict with her ex-husband around their child. I was impressed by how well she dealt with the situation, bringing love, compassion and willingness to "see" her ex's perspective. I put "see" in quotes because what she did is deeper than visual. She actually allowed herself to experience his possible feelings.
In conflict situations, that may be the most important element to defusing a situation. When one is able to extend beyond one's own feelings to imagine how the other person may be feeling, something is unlocked and generosity can happen. I don't know if I'm expressing this well, so let me try explaining.
I'm reminded of the lesson that if I put my hand in the candy jar and take a huge handful of candy, I can't get my hand out and am left with a fistful of candy that I'm unable to eat (let's ignore the question of whether I should be eating candy at all!). If I open my fist and let go of the huge amount of candy, instead using my fingers to pick out one or two pieces, then I have some candy to eat. My appetite for something sweet is satisfied. Perhaps my greed isn't satisfied nor is my deepest appetite to have as much candy as possible so I never feel hunger again. That's OK, because my experience is that once I have the one or two pieces of candy, I'm satisfied and the deep hunger is abated. Also, there is plenty of candy left for someone else to have some. When I "need" the candy, I can't bear the thought of anyone else getting any, and I will hang on to that candy jar for dear life and refuse to share - until I have some candy. Then I realize that I can get what I want and "need" and so can other people. I have to relinquish my hold on the jar in order to eat the candy I have taken, which leaves it open to someone else.
In so much of my experience and reading, I am struck by the real need we humans have to be heard - truly heard. Lots of the conflict resolution training I've gone through for work has emphasized "active listening" as a tool for defusing conflict. I have often used it with great success, after having my first live experience with it go extremely well. I had a conflict with the staff lawyer about how to process contracts (I worked for a government agency in NYC). We made an appointment to talk, and I began by laying out what I thought our conflict was about. Then I checked with her - "is that your perception? If not, would you tell me what you think the problem is?" And when she clarified her perspective, I then repeated it back to her and asked if that was what she said. Throughout the entire conversation, I used that active listening tool of mirroring back her words to her and checking to see if I had heard her correctly. I literally could see her relaxing moment by moment. She came to trust that I would not make any assumptions, that I respected her viewpoint, that I wanted to partner with her to come up with a reasonable solution. And we did negotiate a terrific agreement. Plus, our future relationship improved dramatically.
I learned those tools in a workshop run by a psychologist and an engineer - a great team, and exemplary of the kind of people who can often come into conflict - a "feeling" person and a "techie" person. Watching them was inspirational. Then they said that the tools they taught were powerful enough that all it took was one person in a dyad to use them in order to have a great and productive conversation. And that has been true for me.
It takes a deep kind of willingness and generosity to have that kind of conversation and have an outcome that results in both people getting most of what they want. I find that the goodwill that's generated more than makes up for what I may perceive I've "lost" by not getting all I initially wanted (perhaps my initial greediness for getting everything!).
In college I took a class in Middle-Eastern Politics taught by a professor who had quite Zionist leanings. At the beginning of the class, most of us students were pro-Israel. By the end, we were 50/50, meaning more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective. While the professor was visibly upset by this outcome, I see now that there could have been no other outcome simply because we now had more information about BOTH sides. We could now see both sides.
My final paper was on Palestinian poetry and its expression of nationalism. I still remember the passion for the land itself embodied in the poetry. It convinced me that no solution to the conflict was possible without Palestinians getting land back, the actual land of Palestine. I also know that Israel must continue to exist on the historical land of Israel. While it seems like an irresolvable problem because both sides lay claim to the same land, I wonder if both sides have their fist balled up tight inside the candy jar. What if each accepted the reality that both need some of the land presently occupied by both? Palestinians give up the right of return while Israelis give up settlements in the West Bank? That's basically what is coming about. Maybe it's possible because people on each side have recognized within the other a similar emotional and spiritual need, putting themselves in the other's shoes (and heart and mind and soul).
It takes a lot of strength to do that, as it has for Israelis and Palestinians to propose compromise based on emotional reality and compassion. And unfortunately people have quite violent reactions to such loving responses. Is that insecurity? Fear of somehow losing something they have or not getting what they want? Or that the conflict remains preferable to resolution? I venture that when we get sick and tired of the conflict, we are more willing to explore resolution, more willing to open our hearts and consider alternatives.
It's perhaps a little selfish, this seeking of an end to conflict and anger and punishment. Because when I am angry at someone, the anger hurts me far more than it hurts the other person - my stomach hurts, I can't go places because the other person will be there, I have headaches, whatever. Resolving the anger, letting it go, engaging in forgiveness - all of those benefit me. And I do believe they benefit the universe by putting more resolution, love, compassion etc into the ether.
Maybe conflict is inevitable, simply because people have different experiences, needs, opinions, interests. And those come into conflict at times. I think you mean something when you mean something else. We both want that piece of land. Like three year olds who both want that special toy at the same time and don't know how to share or take turns. I don't mean to minimize it by saying that but I do think that like children, humanity is still growing up and learning how to share and take turns. We're not there yet. The question for me is, will we ever be? I hope so!
One truism I challenge is that people battle over scarce resources. To the contrary, those with the least are often the most generous. I've seen parents go hungry so that their children can eat, and groups of people share a meager meal. Sure there are some hoarders, but they are exceptions at the soup kitchen or food pantry. What troubles me more is the people who already have so much who just want more, more, more. The pursuit of material goods and of quantity can blind these people to the fact that they live in a world with others who also have needs. How much is enough? It's a soul-sickness that puts them in conflict with others. Healing that sickness could heal the conflict.
Another kind of conflict is when we come from such different places that it's hard to understand each other. To do so requires patience and communication and a willingness to listen to another's point of view and to accept that their views and interests and needs are equally valid, and the stamina to keep explaining my own perspective in ways that the other might understand. I've spent lots of time talking to men about my perspective as a woman, with varying degrees of success. One thing I need is the comfort of other women, respite from the struggle. That's something that most people need, I think - a place where there is no conflict or struggle - a place to rest and get ready to go back into the fray. Without that rest, violence may be more likely.
So I admit that conflict is a necessary fact of the human condition. It's useful, however, only if it can be resolved amicably. And that resolution can be into a new phase of being or consciousness, to a compromise, to some win/win agreement, or agreeing to disagree or to live and let live. I have found that the best "teachers" in my life are the difficulties I've faced, the things that challenge my self-perception and capabilities, the pain that's forced me to change something internal and/or external. Because I really want contentment and serenity, I am willing to push through the process toward amicable internal resolution.
The books Getting to Yes and Getting Past No do offer methods for getting a win-win resolution to business and personal conflicts. Active listening is my favorite tool - really listening to what the other person wants and needs. I'm reminded that negotiations are between people, not between companies or nations per se. And what I read about the best negotiators - the ones who actually make progress in resolving conflicts like in Northern Ireland (what a beacon of hope that is!) - is that they listen, help each side to listen to each other, and have no preset agenda other than to help the two sides come to some amicable and mutually acceptable and beneficial agreement. So it's not about eliminating conflict, it's about accepting it and then working with it from there.
I recently read a story about a woman making the best out of a nasty conflict with her ex-husband around their child. I was impressed by how well she dealt with the situation, bringing love, compassion and willingness to "see" her ex's perspective. I put "see" in quotes because what she did is deeper than visual. She actually allowed herself to experience his possible feelings.
In conflict situations, that may be the most important element to defusing a situation. When one is able to extend beyond one's own feelings to imagine how the other person may be feeling, something is unlocked and generosity can happen. I don't know if I'm expressing this well, so let me try explaining.
I'm reminded of the lesson that if I put my hand in the candy jar and take a huge handful of candy, I can't get my hand out and am left with a fistful of candy that I'm unable to eat (let's ignore the question of whether I should be eating candy at all!). If I open my fist and let go of the huge amount of candy, instead using my fingers to pick out one or two pieces, then I have some candy to eat. My appetite for something sweet is satisfied. Perhaps my greed isn't satisfied nor is my deepest appetite to have as much candy as possible so I never feel hunger again. That's OK, because my experience is that once I have the one or two pieces of candy, I'm satisfied and the deep hunger is abated. Also, there is plenty of candy left for someone else to have some. When I "need" the candy, I can't bear the thought of anyone else getting any, and I will hang on to that candy jar for dear life and refuse to share - until I have some candy. Then I realize that I can get what I want and "need" and so can other people. I have to relinquish my hold on the jar in order to eat the candy I have taken, which leaves it open to someone else.
In so much of my experience and reading, I am struck by the real need we humans have to be heard - truly heard. Lots of the conflict resolution training I've gone through for work has emphasized "active listening" as a tool for defusing conflict. I have often used it with great success, after having my first live experience with it go extremely well. I had a conflict with the staff lawyer about how to process contracts (I worked for a government agency in NYC). We made an appointment to talk, and I began by laying out what I thought our conflict was about. Then I checked with her - "is that your perception? If not, would you tell me what you think the problem is?" And when she clarified her perspective, I then repeated it back to her and asked if that was what she said. Throughout the entire conversation, I used that active listening tool of mirroring back her words to her and checking to see if I had heard her correctly. I literally could see her relaxing moment by moment. She came to trust that I would not make any assumptions, that I respected her viewpoint, that I wanted to partner with her to come up with a reasonable solution. And we did negotiate a terrific agreement. Plus, our future relationship improved dramatically.
I learned those tools in a workshop run by a psychologist and an engineer - a great team, and exemplary of the kind of people who can often come into conflict - a "feeling" person and a "techie" person. Watching them was inspirational. Then they said that the tools they taught were powerful enough that all it took was one person in a dyad to use them in order to have a great and productive conversation. And that has been true for me.
It takes a deep kind of willingness and generosity to have that kind of conversation and have an outcome that results in both people getting most of what they want. I find that the goodwill that's generated more than makes up for what I may perceive I've "lost" by not getting all I initially wanted (perhaps my initial greediness for getting everything!).
In college I took a class in Middle-Eastern Politics taught by a professor who had quite Zionist leanings. At the beginning of the class, most of us students were pro-Israel. By the end, we were 50/50, meaning more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective. While the professor was visibly upset by this outcome, I see now that there could have been no other outcome simply because we now had more information about BOTH sides. We could now see both sides.
My final paper was on Palestinian poetry and its expression of nationalism. I still remember the passion for the land itself embodied in the poetry. It convinced me that no solution to the conflict was possible without Palestinians getting land back, the actual land of Palestine. I also know that Israel must continue to exist on the historical land of Israel. While it seems like an irresolvable problem because both sides lay claim to the same land, I wonder if both sides have their fist balled up tight inside the candy jar. What if each accepted the reality that both need some of the land presently occupied by both? Palestinians give up the right of return while Israelis give up settlements in the West Bank? That's basically what is coming about. Maybe it's possible because people on each side have recognized within the other a similar emotional and spiritual need, putting themselves in the other's shoes (and heart and mind and soul).
It takes a lot of strength to do that, as it has for Israelis and Palestinians to propose compromise based on emotional reality and compassion. And unfortunately people have quite violent reactions to such loving responses. Is that insecurity? Fear of somehow losing something they have or not getting what they want? Or that the conflict remains preferable to resolution? I venture that when we get sick and tired of the conflict, we are more willing to explore resolution, more willing to open our hearts and consider alternatives.
It's perhaps a little selfish, this seeking of an end to conflict and anger and punishment. Because when I am angry at someone, the anger hurts me far more than it hurts the other person - my stomach hurts, I can't go places because the other person will be there, I have headaches, whatever. Resolving the anger, letting it go, engaging in forgiveness - all of those benefit me. And I do believe they benefit the universe by putting more resolution, love, compassion etc into the ether.
posted by julieannerickson at 12:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home